Family business perspectives and stress in two-generation farm and ranch families
by Claudia Mattheis
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Home Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by Claudia Mattheis (1993)
Abstract:
Agriculture is an important economical resource to this nation and to many states such as Montana.
During the past decade farmers and ranchers have faced numerous economic. environmental, and
familial stressors. Many family farms and ranches have failed. One of the biggest reasons for their
failure was the unsuccessful attempts at transferring the farm to the succeeding generation. This study
examined the relationship between family/business perspectives and stress in two-generation farm and
ranch families. Family/business perspectives were comprised of the variables of family cohesion,
family expressiveness, and perception of how well the business was working. The later variable was
comprised of the three sub-variables of how well the business arrangement was working, concern about
the business, and perception of how much other family members pull their own weight in the family
business.
It was hypothesized that family/business perspectives are negatively related to perceived stress levels
for both the retiring and receiving generations. Correlation coefficients and step-wise regression
analyses were utilized to test the hypothesis. The results generally indicated that family business
perspectives affect stress in two-generation farm and ranch families. While few generational
differences were found, there were an number of differences by family position. Interpretations of these
differences are suggested. FAMILY BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES AND STRESS
IN TWO-GENERATION FARM AND RANCH FAMILIES
by
Claudia Mattheis
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science
in
Home Economics
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
April, 1993
m43)
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
Claudia Jean Mattheis
This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis
committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding
content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic
style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the
College of Graduate Studies.
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
Date
Graduate Dean
ill
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State
University, I agree that the library shall make it
available to borrowers under rules of the library.
If I have indicated my intention to copyright this
thesis by including a copyright notice page, copying is
allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with
"fair use" as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law.
Requests for permission for extended quotation from or
reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be
granted only by the copyright holder.
Signature^%^c^<L^
Date
/
/I
*3. / f 3__________________
/
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
gratefully acknowledge m y .family for their patience,
understanding, and support during my work on this thesis.
I especially appreciate my husband, Gary, and my son, Jason
for the sacrifices they made. We definitely learned more
about family relations from this experience.
I
also wish to acknowledge my friends for their
encouragement and humor, especially during the down times.
Thanks for being there.
I
would like to acknowledge my,committee chairperson.
Dr. Ramona Marotz-Baden, for her guidance, expertise, and
support during this time.
I also wish to thank Dr. Carmen
Knudson-Martin and Dr. Laura Massey for their patience and
assistance.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES.............................. .........
vii
LIST OF FIGURES...... ................................
ix
ABSTRACT................................ ............
x
1.
I
INTRODUCTION.....................................
Conceptual Framework............... . .......
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW......
7
12
Stress......................................
12
Cohesion..............
15
Expressiveness......
'17
18
Perception........
Summary and Hypothesis...............
21
3.
METHODS......................
Sampling Procedure........
Operational Definitions............'........
Cohesion and Expressiveness............
Perception.............................
Perceived Stress ...........
Description of the Sample...................
4.
RESULTS..............................
Data Analysis...........
Generations........
Hypothesis 1 ......................
Hypothesis 2 .........
Hypothesis 3 .................
Sub-hypothesis I .... .........
Sub-hypothesis 2 ........
Sub-hypothesis 3 .............
Family Position..................... .v.
Hypothesis 1 ......................
Hypothesis 2 ......................
Hypothesis 3................'.....
Sub-hypothesis I ........
Sub-hypothesis 2. .............
Sub-hypothesis 3 ......
25
25
27
27
28
29
3l
33
3333
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
39
40
42
42
43
44
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued Page
5.
DISCUSSION.......................................
46
Cohesion andExpressiveness.......
46
Perception.........'..................
47
Mothers............... '......... ...........
49
Fathers.....................................
50
Sons...................
51
Daughters-in-1aw........
52
Gender.............................
53
Implications.................................. 53
Limitations................................. 55
REFERENCES CITED. ...............
56
APPENDIX
62
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
<
Page
1.
Description of the Sample.....................
32
2.
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of Cohesion and Perceived
Stress by Generation. .................. .......
34
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of Expressiveness and
Perceived Stress by Generation........ . .......
35
Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/
Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for the Receiving Generation............
35
3.
4.
5.
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of How Well the Business
Arrangement Works and Perceived Stress by
Generation......... ............ ............ ... 36
6.
Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/
Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for the Retiring Generation.............
37
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of Concerned About the
Business and Perceived Stress by Generation....
38
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of Pulling Weight and
Perceived Stress by Generation................
39
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of Cohesion and Perceived
Stress by Family Position......................
40
Correlation Results Between the .Family/Business
Perspective Variable of Expressiveness and
Perceived Stress by Family Position............
41
Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/
Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for Fathers........... ........ '........
41
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
viii
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table
12.
Page
Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/
Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for Sons............ ...... ............
42
13.
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of How Well the Business
Arrangement Works and Perceived Stress by Family
Position.....................................
43
14.
Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/
Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for Mothers.......................
43
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of Concerned About the
Business and Perceived Stress byFamily Position
44
15.
16.
Correlation Results Between the Family/Business
Perspective Variable of Pulling Weight and
Perceived Stress by FamilyPosition...........
45
17.
Step-wise Regression Result's Between Family/
Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for Daughters-in-Iaw
45
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
I.
Page
Conceptual Model...............................
11
X
ABSTRACT
Agriculture is an important economical resource to
this nation and to many states such as Montana. During the
past decade farmers and ranchers have faced numerous
economic, environmental, and familial stressors. Many
family farms and ranches have failed. One of the biggest
reasons for their failure was the unsuccessful attempts at
transferring the farm to the succeeding generation. This
study examined the relationship between family/business
perspectives and stress in two-generation farm and ranch
families. Family/business perspectives were comprised of
the variables of family cohesion, family expressiveness,
and perception of how well the business was working. The
later variable was comprised of the three sub-variables of
how well the business arrangement was working, concern
about the business, and perception of how much other family
members pull their own weight in the family business.
It was hypothesized that family/business perspectives are
negatively related to perceived stress levels for both the
retiring and receiving generations. Correlation
coefficients and step-wise regression analyses were
utilized to test the hypothesis. The results generally
indicated that family business perspectives affect stress
in two-generation farm and ranch families. While few
generational differences were found, there were an number
of differences by family position. Interpretations of
these differences are suggested.
I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study is about the impact that family/business
perspectives have on the perceived stress levels of family
members of two-generation farm families.
This study
pertains to two-generation farm/ranch families during a
time of the life-cycle in which the retirement/transfer
process is taking place.
The retiring generation is
considering, or in the process of retirement and/or
transferring the farm business to the receiving generation.
Concurrently, the receiving generation is considering, or
in the process of, taking over their parents farm or ranch
business.
This transitional period is often problematic
and stressful for these families as they attempt the goal
of transferring the farm/ranch business.
Family/business perspectives, i.e ., how family members
define their overall family business situation, are
hypothesized as affecting commitment of family members to
goals of their family business (Weigel & BalIard-Reisch,
1991).
In this study, family/business' perspectives, used
interchangeably with business/family perspectives, are
comprised of the variables of cohesion, expressiveness, and
perceptions of how well the business is working.
This
2
study will look at how family/business perspectives are
related to stress levels of the retiring and receiving
generations.
Family owned businesses are an integral part of the
United States economy.
According to national estimates,
approximately 90% of businesses in this country are family
owned and operated, contributing to approximately 40% of
the Gross National Product (Rosenblatt, 1985).
Since most
parents want to pass the business on to their children
(Bratton & Berkowitz, 1976; Hedlund & Berkowitz, 1979) the
process of transferring the enterprise from the retiring to
the receiving generation is particularly significant.
One type of family-owned businesses that has recently
been given greater attention is that of farming and
ranching.
United States farmers and ranchers make
significant contributions to the portentous worldwide
agriculture market. Agriculture is important to the
economic well-being of this nation and to many rural
states.
In fact, it is the largest industry in states such
as Montana.
In Montana, agriculture contributed 2.1
billion dollars to the state's economy during 1990 (Montana
Agricultural Statistics, 1991).
Thus, the contribution of
the farm and ranch sector is vital to our society.
However, during the past decade many farmers and ranchers
have had to struggle to maintain their family farms as they
faced economic, environmental, and familial stressors.
3
Two-generation farm and ranch family businesses face
various stressors inherent in the dynamics of combining
family and business such as role confusion, power
struggles, and boundary issues.
How this combination of
stressors influences the stress levels of the generations
is beginning to be fleshed out (Keating & Little, 1991;
Keating & Munro; 1989; Marotz-Baden, 1988; Marotz-Baden &
Mattheis, 1992; Rosenblatt & Albert, 1990; Weigel & Weigel,
1987;, Wilson, Marotz-Baden, & Holloway, 1991) .
Transferring the business to the succeeding generation
is an additional stressor experienced by many farm and
ranch families (Jonovic & Messick, 1986; Marotz-Baden,
Keating, & Munro, 1993).
It is a process that is often
difficult to accomplish.
The success rate of such
transfers is estimated at approximately 30% into the second
generation (Beckhard & Dryer, 1983) and 13% into the third
generation (Ward, 1987).
It is suspected that these rates
are somewhat higher for farm and ranch families.
Because
the mean age of farmers is over 51 (Kendall, 1988) the
transfer issue is especially relevant to them as they will
probably be contemplating retirement at some point during
the next 15 years. The outcomes of intergenerational
transfers are important because they may influence the next
farming generation, the economy of the farm family, and the
coherence or unity within the farm family (Boehlje, 1973,
Russell, Griffin, Flinchbaugh, Martin, & AtiIano, 1985,
4
Weigel, Weigel, & Blundal I, 1987, cited in Keating & Munro,
1989).
Farmers and ranchers have very little experience with
the process of transferring the farm from one generation to
the next.
They.may be the recipient generation at some
point and the transferring generation at another.
In
addition, the familial, financial and legal issues involved
in transferring a business from one generation to the next
are often complex and difficult for farm families to
understand (Anderson & Rosenblatt, 1985).
This is true for
both retiring and receiving generations, partial Iy because
of their lack of experience and partialIy because of the
potential relationship stressors between the generations
(Magnuson-Martinson & Bauer, 1986).
Considering the above
circumstances, it is likely that the transfer process will
be confusing and stressful for many farm families.
In order to develop programs which would help farmers
successfully transfer their businesses to the. succeeding
generation it is imperative that certain aspects of the
process be understood more completely.
Although recent
studies have focused on the transfer process, much more
information about the struggles faced by both the receiving
and retiring generations and their coping behaviors is
needed.
Understanding the nature of family/business
perspectives that develop within two-generation farm and
ranch families may provide valuable insight and needed
5
information concerning the transfer process.
Such
information would be useful for educational purposes such
as potential intervention strategies for assisting farm and
ranch families.
This information would also contribute to
a growing body of intergenerational farm/ranch transfer
research.
The present study posits that one possible reason for
stress is that family/business perspectives affect the
stress levels of the generations.
In turn, stress levels
may impact subsequent commitment to goals of the business,
including that of the retiring generation transferring the
business to the receiving generation.
Families and businesses can both be conceptualized as
systems.
When two-generation farm families work together
the following basic systems are present: (I) the retiring
generation, defined in this research as parents age 50, or
older, who own, and/or operate, a farm or ranch business,
and are facing, or engaged in, the probable retirement/
asset transfer process, involving transference of the
business.to one or more of their adult children;
(2) the
receiving generation defined as adult children, over 18
years of age, and his/her spouse, who are identified by the
retiring generation as being most involved in the
farm/ranch enterprise, and are facing, or currently
involved in, the probable retirement/asset transfer
6
process; and (3) the intergenerational farm family'
business.
Inherent within these three systems are complex
interaction processes which result in the formation of
family/business perspectives.
Such perspectives represent
the overall views or perceptions that family members have
of their family and business situations.
Weigel and
Ballard-Reisch (1991) suggest that such perspectives are
negatively related to stress levels in intergenerational
family businesses and may ultimately affect commitment to
business goals.
In the present study the family/business perspective
is defined as the overall positive or negative views that
family members have about the current intergenerational
family business situation (Weigel et al, 1991) and consists
of perceptions of family cohesion, family expressiveness,
and how well the family business is working.
The purpose
of this study is to look at the relationships between
stress levels of two-generation farm and ranch families and
the three components of the family/business perspective:
-
(I) family cohesion,
(2) family expressiveness, and (3)
perceptions of how well the business is working.
7
Conceptual Framework Social exchange theory is utilized in this thesis’as
the theoretical foundation to help explain the impact that
family/business perspectives have on the interactional
dynamics of two-generation farm/ranch families.
Social
exchange theory posits a process in which people make
situational decisions based on the rewards, costs, and
subsequent outcomes involved (Nye, 1979, SabatelIi, 1988,
Thibaut & Kelly, 1959, cited in Ballard-Reisch & Weigel,
1991).
Outcomes are viewed in the context of what can be
realistically expected. As long as outcomes are
consistently greater than expectations, individual family
members are satisfied. When outcomes are less than what was
expected, dissatisfaction occurs (Homans, 1974, Marstan &
Hecht, 1988, Sabetelli, 1984, cited in Ballard-Reisch &
Weigel, 1991).
The social exchange perspective posits that
people will remain in situations as long as the rewards are
greater then the costs and the outcomes are better than the
perceived alternatives ( Nye, 1979, Sabetel Ii, 1988,
Thibaut & Kelly, 1959, cited in Ballard-Reisch & Weigel,
1991).
-I
Ballard-Reisch and Weigel (1991) developed a
sequential, four stage, Interaction-Based Model of Social
Exchange based on intergenerationaI farm/ranch family
interactions.
The four stages of the model are: I) member
resources, dependencies and alternatives; 2) social
-
8
exchange driven interaction; 3) outcomes of social
exchange; and 4) system maintainence/change feedback loops.
Social exchange driven interactions are based on the
underlying individual resources/capabilities members bring
to the family business, dependencies that develop according
to the degree to which members are committed to accomplish­
ing the goal of maintaining the family farm, and possible
alternatives which may exist outside that two-generation
farming enterprise.
Some possible resources/capabilities
brought into the family business are creativity, communica­
tion skills, business acumen and previous experience.
A
key assumption in their,model is that dependencies between
members of the family develop according to the extent that
the various members are committed to the goals of the
business.
Thus, as members become more committed to the
business, they also become more dependent upon each other.
(Weigel & BalIard-Reisch, 1991).
These social exchange driven interactions are also
affected by alternatives available to family members.
Alternatives may become important if members are not
satisfied with their situations. •Resources, dependencies,
and alternatives form the basis from which outcomes of the
social exchange driven interaction process emerge.
Two prominent outcomes, according to Weigel and
Ballard-Reisch (1991), are the negotiation of roles and
power currencies.
Well defined roles tend to reduce
9
confusion and stress.
"Power currencies are the sources of
power or capacities members can use to increase their
chances of exerting control in a specific situation"
(Hocker & WiImot, 1985, cited in Weigel & BalIard-Reisch,
1991, p . 12).
Satisfaction with the social exchange
process and the outcomes of roles and power currencies form
the basis for the next outcome of the model.
The final outcome of the above interaction-based model
is what Weigel & Ballard-Reisch (1991) call the business/
family perspective.
The family/business perspective
evolves according to overall positive or negative views
individual family members acquire concerning certain
factors, such as stress and cohesion, present within the
intergenerational farm/ranch family business.
Such
perspectives, based on current family/business situations,
are influenced by the positive or negative valence
attributed to the views and the importance of the
situation.
Family/business perspectives impact the family
business system and may ultimately affect commitment to the
goals of the business.
or change.
This can lead to system maintenance
The more congruence there is
individual's business/family
"...between an
perspective and his/her
commitment to the family business, the more likely the
individual will be to engage in communication aimed at.
maintaining the current situation"■(Weigel & BallardReisch-, 1991, p. 17).
If there are discrepancies between ■
10
family/business perspectives and goal commitment then
individuals will attempt to change the system through goal
reassessment, modification, abandonment, or withdrawal
(Weigel & BalIard-Reisch, 1991).
Weigel and Ballard-Reisch (1991) first suggest that
current stress levels are an important component of the
family/business perspective.
On the same page however, the
authors state that "Stress levels are negatively related to
the family/business perspective".
One instance includes
stress as being within the family/business perspective.
The other suggests that stress is outside of the family/
business perspectives.
The present study utilizes the second
conceptualization and hypothesizes that the family/business
perspective impacts upon the perceived stress levels of the
intergenerationaI family members. This relationship is
conceptualized in Figure I.
As this model suggests, stress
may affect the congruence between family business
perspectives and goal commitment, which could ultimately
influence the family's success in accomplishing the goal of
transferring the farm from the older to the younger
generation.
Ballard-Reisch and Weigel's (1991)
Interaction-Based Model of Social Exchange was utilized in'
the present study because it is a helpful framework for
understanding how two-generation farm family interactions
can affect commitment to goals of the family business.
11
Resources
Dependencies
Alternatives
4------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ --------- ---------------
Roles
r
Family
—W
Business
I Perspectives
Social
Exchange
Stress
W
Goal
Commitments
Power
Currencies
Figure I.
Conceptual Model
Adapted from Weigel, D . & Ballard-Reisch, D ., 1991.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a review of the relevant current
literature.
A broad overview of the factor of stress and
those factors which constitute the family business
perspective (i.e ., cohesion, expression, and perception)
within a family relations context is given.
The overview
of each factor is followed by a more detailed review of its
relationship to stress within intergenerational farm/ranch
families.
The literature reviewed is summarized and fol­
lowed by a presentation of the hypothesis.
StressOver the past 50 years, stress in families has
increasingly become a topic of research.
Rubin Hill (1949)
categorized family stress in terms of "family disruptions",
such as death, adoption and alcoholism, which lead to
crisis.
Others began to identify stressors which impacted
individuals.
Holmes and Rahe (1967) suggested that the
most prominent stressors were in response to familial
issues and affected not only the individual but also
his/her family.
Most recently, stress has been viewed in a family
13
context. It is suggested that both the resources available
to and utilized by families and the perception of the
situation affect how the family system will respond to
stressors. This, in turn, ultimately affects the stress
levels experienced by the entire family (Boss, 1988;
McCubbin & Patterson, 1981).
H
During the past decade, researchers, have begun to
address the issue of stress within the context of the twogeneration farm/ranch family.
These families have unique
family dynamics in that the parents and the adult children
both live and work in close proximity to one another
(Rosenblatt, Nevaldine, & Titus, 1978; Urey & HenggeIer,
1983; Weigel, Weigel, & Blundal 1, 1987).
Some studies
(Coughenour & Kowalski, 1977; Marotz-Baden & Cowan, 1987)
have focused on dyadic relationships, i .e ., fathers and
sons, or mothers and daughters-in-law.
Coughenour and
Kowalski (1977) suggested that relationships between
fathers and their adult sons may become confusing and
problematic because of the difficulty in having to choose
when to deal with each other as family members and when as
co-workers.
Although the mother-in-law is believed to be
the most problematic relative, Marotz-Baden and Cowan
(1987) found that close proximity between rural mothers and
daughters-in-law did not increase the stress levels of
either group of women.
14
Research indicates that the younger generation appears
to be more stressed than the older generation (Weigel &
Weigel, 1987).
Other studies explored possible stressors
and stress levels of the individual family members of both
generations (Russell et al, 1985; Wiegal & Weigel, 1987;
Wilson et al, 1991).
of stress.
All members experience various levels
However, daughters-in-Iaw are often reported as
being the most stressed family member (Keating &. Little,
1991; Marotz-Baden,- 1988; Weigel & Weigel, 1987; Wilson et
al, 1991).
Recent research (Marotz-Baden & Mattheis, 1992)
suggests that this may be due to the peripheral position of
the daughters-in-law within the two-generation farm/ranch
family.
Researchers are also focusing on coping strategies
utilized by farm/ranch families.
Weigel and Weigel (1987)
identified stressors and coping strategies of twogeneration farm families.
Competition, defined as
combining work and family roles, was the most frequently
cited stressor for the family members in their study.
They
reported faith, defined as reappraising the meaning of the
problem, as the most often used coping strategy. MarotzBaden and Colvin (1986), in a comparative study of rural
and urban couples, found that reframing, seeking spiritual
support, and seeking social support were often used as
coping strategies by both groups, but especially by the
rural couples.
15
The process of transferring the ranch/farm to the next
generation is a topic of recent interest. Intergenerational
transfer was reported as stressful by all four family
members (Keating & Munro, 1989; Marotz-Baden, 1988;
Rosenblatt & Albert, 1990; Salamon & Markin, 1984; Swogger,■
1991; Weigel & Weigel, 1.987).
Since two-generation farm
families struggle with.the stressors of combining family
and business, and with the transfer process, it would be
'
useful for professionals working with such families to
understand the family dynamics of cohesion, expressiveness,
and perception which make up the family/business
perspective, and are hypothesized to be related to
generational stress levels.
Cohesion =
Cohesion, used interchangeably with cohesiveness in
this research, is becoming a more widely used concept
describing family relations.
Cohesion has been defined as
"...the emotional bonding that family members have towards
one another" and a family process that "...had to do with
the degree to which an individual was separated from or
connected to his family system" (Olson & McCubbin, 1983,
p .48).
In Olson's Circumplex Model of Marital and Family
Systems, four levels of family cohesion are examined: (I)
disengaged,
(2) separated, (3) connected, and (4) enmeshed.
Disengaged family systems, where there is little family
16
attachment, and enmeshed family systems, where there is too
much attachment, are both viewed as extreme levels of
functioning and problematic for the family.
Olson and
McCubbin (1983) contend that the central or balanced levels
of cohesion, labeled as separated and connected on the
Circumplex model, are the most optimal for healthy family
functioning.
Anderson (1986), testing Olson's Circumplex Model,
found that couples who tend to function on the more
balanced levels of cohesion also have more positive
communication skills.
La Coste, Ginter, and Whipple
(1987), in a study of adolescents and their parents, found
a high correlation between cohesiveness and perceived
communication.
The findings of both studies indicate that
the level of cohesion within the system influences family
functioning.
Little research exists on family cohesion in twogeneration farm/rarich families.
One study, which focused
on the marital cohesion of both generations, reported a
significant negative relationship between marital cohesion
and stress for fathers, suggesting that higher levels of
marital cohesion were, related to lower stress levels
(Wilson et al, 1991).
This relationship was not
significant for the mothers, sons, or daughters-in-Iaw.
Weigel and Weigel (1987) looked at factors assumed to
create stress for family members.
One such factor, "tod
17
much family contact", was correlated with stress. Perhaps
family contact taps some aspect of cohesion.
Although data
are sparse, it appears that cohesion is related to family
functioning in two-generational farm/ranch families.
Expressiveness
Expressiveness is another factor related to family
functioning.
Research by Hedlund and Berkowitz (1,979)
found that families in which all members could openly
express their feelings, opinions, and ideas had less
stress.
Out of the 13 families they studied in which the
members could openly communicate/express their feelings,
etc., only two couples experienced marital or
intergenerational transfer stress.
Six of the seven
families in which the members did not openly express
themselves experienced these stressors.
Anderson and
Rosenblatt's (1985) study on the intergenerational transfer
of farm land also emphasized the importance of
expressiveness in rural families.
In regards to the
transfer process, the.most often mentioned advice offered
by respondents was more discussion between family members
and early planning (Anderson & Rosenblatt,. 1985) .
Russell, Flinchbaugh, Griffin, and Martin (1983)
looked at factors which eased the transfer.process: They
found that open discussion.among family members was the
single strongest predictor of ease in the transfer process.
18
Such expression eased the transfer process for both
generations.
Weigel and Weigel (1987) identified various coping
strategies utilized by two-generation farm families.
Talking with others, one of the factors identified in their
study, addressed the importance that family members placed
on talking about problems and stressors they encountered.
Having a family meeting was reported as the most frequently
used option of the four possibilities listed within the
above factor. The other options were to talk to other
families, talk to relatives, and seek help from
professionals.
!
The above studies emphasize the importance that
expression plays within two-generation farm family
relations.
Perception, or how family members view their
situation, is another component of family dynamics that is
beginning to be looked at in a rural context.
It is
addressed next.
Perception
Increasingly, researchers are concluding that
individual perception, i.e ., how family members define
their own situations, plays an important part in family
relations.
In McCubbin and Patterson's (1981) double ABCX
model of stress and crisis, "perception" of the situation
is an important factor influencing how well individuals.
19
adapt to stressful situations.
Boss (1988), in her
Contextual Model of Family Stress, suggests that in order
to understand stress levels within families it is important
to gain insight into how the family perceives the
situation.
■"The meaning they give to the event is the key
to their appraisals of the situation; this meaning
influences not only the families' vulnerability but, also,
how the families and family members will act and react to
what is happening to them" (Boss, 1988, p. 19).
Both
models highlight the importance of the relationship between
perception and stress.
Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1983) also emphasize the
importance of perception by suggesting that "Couples and
families will function most adequately.if there is a high
level of congruence between the perceived and ideal
descriptions for all family members" (Olson et al, 1983, p.
74).
A recent study by Malia, Norem, and Garrison (1991)
supported the general notion that discrepancies between
perceived real and ideal family functioning have an impact
on family health, again emphasizing the importance of
perception in family functioning.
The younger and the older generations view the
transfer through different lenses (Keating, 1991; MarotzBaden, 1986; Weigel & BalIard-Reisch, 1991).
A situation
may be perceived as stressful for one generation but not
for the other.
Russell, et al., (1983) studied two-
20
generation farm family members perceived ease of
transferring the farm to the next generation.
They
suggested that, when the retiring generation perceives
farming as burdensome or the farming lifestyle
questionable, they also perceive the transfer decision as
difficult.
The authors state that the retiring generation
"may be caught between wanting to preserve a family
heritage and yet believing that heritage to be diminished
in value under their stewardship" (Russell et al, 1983, p .
15).
On the other hand, the authors suggest that the
receiving generation's perception of the farming lifestyle
as highly satisfactory is associated with their perceived
difficulty of transfer because the receiving generation may
be overly excited at having the transfer finalized so they
can attain this lifestyle.
The receiving generation may
also be uncomfortable about not knowing to what extent they
will be involved in the farm operation.
Thus, perceptions
of the situation affect how both generations respond to the
transfer process and may influence the stress levels of the
famiIy members.
A study by Keating (1987) reported that the most
important predictor of stress for both farm men and Women
was the personal resource of mastery of control over their
situations.
Perception appears to be a key component of
such mastery. The author reported that "High stress
farmers felt that their fate and consequently their
21
livelihood was.out of control" (Keating, 1987, p . 246).
A recent study of forty eight rural adults from
Colorado reported that for the most part there is a
tendency "... for.negative perceptions of the overall
farm/ranch situation to he associated with farm/ranch
family experience of specific family stressors or strains,
and with elevated stress and depression levels" (Fetsch &
Brooke-Jacobsen, 1992, p. 24).
Studies such as this one
and those discussed above are indicative of the impact that
perception has on stress within a family context.
Summary and Hypothesis
In summary, the literature suggests that transferring
the farm from one generation to the next is often a
stressful process.
Cohesion, expressiveness, and
perception are all influential aspects of family
functioning which affect the transfer process.
Although
little research exists on cohesion, there appears to be a
curvilinear relationship between levels of cohesion and
positive communication within families.
Increased
expressiveness within families appears helpful in the
reduction of stress and, thus, can be a useful coping
strategy.
The perception that family members have of their
situation influences how they respond to stressors and to
one another.
levels.
Such perceptions are also related to stress
Both the retiring and receiving generations view
22
the transfer process from different vantage points. Thus,
their stress levels may be different for each generation.
Family/business perspectives, family members' overall
perceptions of their family business situations, are
purported to affect commitment to goals of the family
business, possibly by creating stress.
Intergenerational
farm family business transfers are.often reported as
stressful and confusing.
Understanding the relationship
between family business perspectives and stress may provide
clarity to some of the confusion.
The two questions
•addressed in this study are "Do family/business
perspectives affect stress?" and "Are the affects
generational?"
This study hypothesizes that family/business
perspectives impact the perceived stress levels of the
retiring and receiving generations.
Each of the three
family/business perspective components, i.e ., family
cohesion, family expressiveness, and perception.of how well
the family business is working, are hypothesized to affect
stress levels.
It is assumed that the greater the family
cohesion, expressiveness, and perception of how well the
business is working, the more positive each of these
components is perceived and the more positive the family/
business perspective will be.
The more positive the
family/business perspective is for each generation, the
lower the stress level for each generation.
Below, the
23
overarching hypothesis is stated followed by more specific
hypotheses related to each of the family/business
perspective components.
The more positive the intergenerational family business perspective is for the retiring and receiving
generations,the lower the stress levels are for each
generation.
A.
The higher the perceived level of
intergenerational family cohesion, the lower the
perceived stress levels.for each generation.
B.
The higher the perceived level of
intergenerational expressiveness, the lower the
perceived stress levels for each generation.
C.
The better the retiring and receiving
generations perceive the family business to be
working, the lower the perceived stress levels
for each generation.
1.
The better the retiring and receiving
generations perceive the
business
arrangement to work, the lower the
. stress levels for each generation.
2.
The less often the retiring and
receiving generations are concerned
about the family business, the lower
the stress levels of each generation.
24
3.
The more that the retiring and
receiving generations believe the other
generation is pulling its own weight in
the family business, the lower the
stress level for each.
Tl
25
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
The data for the present study are from the 1991
Montana data set of the W-167 Western Regional Agriculture
Experiment Station research project. The Montana research
was funded by Montana Agriculture Experiment Station Grant
No. M0NB00266. The Montana project was designed with two
objectives: to identify work/employment factors that may
contribute to family stress and factors that mediate
stress; and to investigate how work/employment decisions
are made and relate to family functioning.
The Montana
project focuses on factors of the retirement/succession
process which contribute to stress in families, how those
families mediate stress, and how the process affects family
functioning (Marotz-Baden, 1989).
The present study, which
analyzed data from the Montana project, focused on complete
■
intergenerationaI families, i.e ., those families in which
fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters-in-Iaw all responded.
Sampling Procedure
The questionnaires for the Montana project were
pretested on six two-generation farming families in Idaho.
The questionnaires were then revised based on the feedback
j
26
of the respondents.
It was then piloted with two Montana
families and then,slightly revised.
Separate
questionnaires were designed for all four family members,
i .e ., mothers, fathers, sons, daughters-in-law (see
Appendix A for copy of questionnaire for fathers).
Extensaop agents throughout the state of Montana
identified families in which the father was 50 years of age
or older.
Letters explaining the project and asking for
the names and addresses of the most involved child and
his/her spouse were sent to 308 husbands and their wives.
One husband was not married, five couples had no children
over age 18, and in eight cases one of the parents was
deceased.
Thus, the sample size was reduced to a potential
of 294 two-generation farm/ranch families.
Questionnaires
were sent separately to these husbands and wives.
After
utilizing the Dillman (1978) approach of sending three
follow-up letters, 115 fathers and 113 mothers responded
for a total of 228 members of the retiring generation
(39%).
These fathers' and mothers were asked to send the name
and address of the adult child who was most involved in the
operation.
Parents identified 125 most involved sons, 95
daughters-in-law, seven most involved daughters, and four
sons-in-law.
Questionnaires were then sent separately to
these adult children.
Of those identified, 83 sons, 61
daughters-in-law, four daughters, and one son-in-law
27
responded with completed questionnaires.
The final sample
consisted of 144 responses for the receiving generation
(6 4 %).
There were 63 families in which the mother, father,
and most involved adult child all responded with usable
data.
There were 43 complete families in which the mother,
father, son and daughter-in-law responded.
The data from
these 43 complete families were utilized in the present
study.
Operational Definitions Cohesion and Expressiveness
The variables of cohesion and expressiveness were
measured by Bloom's Family Functioning Scale (Bloom, 1985).
This particular scale measures 15 dimensions of family
functioning.
The instrument results in ranges of scores
indicative of disengaged (low functioning) to cohesive (high
functioning) families.
For the purposes of this study only
the sub-scales measuring the dimensions of cohesion and
expressiveness were utilized.
The average Cronbach's alpha
reliability coefficients of three studies done on the
psychometric properties of Bloom's Family Functioning Scale
were .84 for cohesion and .82 for expressiveness (Bloom,
1985).
These alpha scores reflect the internal consistency
of the instrument (the degree to which the instrument
measures what it is intended to measure).. The average
28
inter-item correlations for the sub-scales used in the',
present.study were .52 for cohesion and .49 for
expressiveness (Bloom, 1985).
The present study reported
reliability coefficients of .86 for cohesion and .76 for
expressiveness.
Participants were asked to respond to 10 items
pertaining to the family dimensions of cohesion and
expressiveness.
The four possible answers for each item
ranged from "Very untrue for my family", a score of one, to
"Very true for my family", a score of four.
The items of
the cohesion sub-scale were I) family members really help
and support one another, 2) there is a feeling of
togetherness in our family, 3) our family doesn't do things
together, 4) we really get along well with each other, and
5) family members seem to avoid contact with each other when
at home.
The items for the expressiveness sub-scale were I)
family members feel free to say what is on their minds, 2)
our family does not discuss its problems, 3) family members
discuss problems and usually feel good about the solutions,
4) in our family it is important for everyone to express his
or her opinion, and 5) we don't tell each other about our
personal problems.
Perception
This study was interested in three aspects of the
perception variable of "how well the family business was
working".
Each respondent's perception of how well the
29
family business was working was measured by three items.
In
reference to the family business, respondents were asked to
respond to the item "How well does the arrangement work?".
Response choices were.(I) "very well, (2) "all right most of
the time",
(3) "not very well", and (4) "it's a disaster".
The second item measuring how well the business was
perceived to be working was the statement "I believe my
chiIdren/parents pull their own weight on the farm/rahch".
The final item measuring how well the business was perceived
to be working was the statement "I am often concerned about
the farm/ranch business".
On the second and third items
participants were asked to respond on a five-point Likert.
type scale ranging from (I) "strongly agree" to (5)
"strongly disagree".
Perceived stress The dependent variable of perceived stress was measured
by the Perceived Stress Scale devised by Cohen, Kamarak, and
Mermelstein (1983).
This 14 item scale was designed to
measure the degree to which situations in one's life are
perceived as stressful.
This scale is most reliable for
those situations which occurred during the previous month.
Coefficient alpha reliability for the Perceived Stress Scale
ranged from .84 to .8.6 (Cohen et al, 1983).
The present
study reports a coefficient alpha reliability of .85 for
this scale.
30
The family/business perspective variables of cohesion,
expressiveness, and perception of how- well the business is
working were examined to see if there was a relationship
between them and perceived stress.
Pearson Product Moment
correlation coefficient analysis was selected to test the
strength and the direction (positive or negative) of the
relationships between the variables, first by family
position (i.e ., fathers, mothers, sons, daughters-in-Iaw)
and then by generation.
Sum scores were calculated for
both the retiring and receiving generations.• Considering
that the hypotheses for this study posited directional
relationships, a one-tailed test of significance was
selected.
The probability level for statistical
significance was set at p<=.05, indicating a 95%
probability that the results did not occur by chance, and
the observed relationship is probably a real one (Gay,
1987).
Multiple regression analysis was then used to
determine what percentage of family/business perspective
variables account for the total variance of perceived
stress.
Step-wise regression, in which variables can be
added to the regression model one at a time, was then
selected to see which of the variables were the best
predictors of stress. .Since the sample was small, multicol linearity of the variables was of concern.
Therefore,
variance inflation factors, which determine the degree of
multi-col linearity, were included in the step-wise
31
regression analysis. The results indicated that multicol linearity was not a problem.
Descriptive statistics
were run for the demographic variables of age, education,
income, number of children, and number of years married.
Description of the Sample
The retiring generation consisted of 43 fathers and
mothers, the receiving generation of 43 sons and daughters
in-law. . The mean ages of the four family members were as
follows: fathers, 63.3, mothers, 59.3, sons, 34.8, and
daughters-in-Iaw 32.3.
The retiring generation had an
average of four children and had been married.for an
average of 37 years.
The receiving generation had been
married for an average of 10 years and had an average of
three children.
The receiving generation was considerably
more educated with 74.5% reporting some post high school
education, compared to 44.8% for the retiring generation.
The mean income for the retiring generation was $38,000,
and $32,000 for the receiving generation.
32 .
Table I. Description of the Sample.
Mean Age in Years
Father
Mother
Son
(n=43)
(n=43)
(n=43)
Daughterin-law
(n=43)
63.3
59.3
34.8
32.3
Number of Years Harried
I
3;
10
Mean Number of Children
3.6
2.5
% .
Education
•Some Grade School
2.3
Completed Grade School
7.0
Less than High School Graduate 9.3
High School Graduate
44.2
Some Trade School
7.0
Trade School
2.3
Some College
11.6
Two-Year Degree
0.0
Four-Year Degree
9.3
Graduate School
7.0
Post-Graduate
0.0
%
0.0
9.5
4.8
33.3
2.4
0.0
23.8
7.1
9.5 '
9.5
0.0
'%
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.3
7.0
7.0
25.6
7.0
20.9
7.0
2.3
%
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.9
0.0
11.6
23.3
4.7
18.6
11,6
2.3
Income
Under $15,000
$15,000-$29,999
$30,000-$44,999
$45,000-$59,999
$60,000-$74,999
$75,000-$89,999
$90,000 or more
%
21.1
42.1
15.8
10.5
2.6
2.6
5.3
*
33.3
45.2
2.4
14.3
4.8
0.0
0.0
31.7
43.9
4.9
14.6
4.9
. 0.0
0.0
Mean
%
26.2
38.1
16.7
9.5
4.8 •
2.4
2.4
$38,000
Hi
$32,000
33
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The overarching hypothesis proposed that the more
positive the intergenerational family/business perspective
was for the retiring and receiving generations, the lower
the stress levels would be for each generation.
Correlation coefficient and step-wise regression analyses
were used to test the hypothesis.
Due to the small sample
size, multiple regression results were not significant and,
therefore, not reported.
Only the statistically
significant results of the step-wise regression analysis
were reported.
The results of the data analysis were
presented first by generation and then by family position.
Data Analysis
Generations
Hypothesis' one. The perceived level of
intergenerational family cohesion will be negatively
related to the perceived stress levels for each generation.
Statistically significant Pearson Product Moment
correlation coefficients of -.36 for the retiring and -.47
for the receiving generations supported this hypothesis, as
shown in Table 2.
34
Table 2. C o r r elation Results Between the Family/Business Perspective' Variable of Cohesion and
P erceived Stress by Generation.
Retiring Generation
(n=43)
Variables
■Perceived Stress
-
Cohesion
Receiving Generation
(n=43)
-.3575
■
P
.032*
r
-.4652
P
.003**
*p<=.05 ,
**p<=.01 ■
However, cohesion was not the best predictor of perceived
stress for the retiring or the receiving generations.
Hypothesis two. A negative relationship will exist
between the perceived level of intergenerational family
expressiveness and the perceived stress levels of both
generations.
This hypothesis was supported by
statistically significant correlation coefficients for both
the retiring (r=-.44) and the receiving (r=-.49)
generations as shown in Table 3.
Expressiveness was not
the predictor for stress for the retiring generation.
35
Table 3.
C o r r elation Results Between the Family/Business Perspective Variable of Expressiveness a nd
Per c e i v e d Stress b y Generation.
>
Retiring Generation
(n=43)
I
P
Variables
Expressiveness
Receiving Generation
(n=43)
IP
Perceived Stress
-.4426
.006**
-.4865
.002**
*p<=.05
**p<=.01
However, expressiveness was the single strongest predictor
variable of perceived stress for the receiving generation
(Fr =.24) accounting for 24% of the variance as shown in
Table 4.
Table 4. Step-wise Regression Analysis Between Pamily/Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for the Receiving Generation.
Variable
Expressiveness
R2
F
P
26500
12,97967
.0009*
* Statistically Significant at .01
Hypothesis three. A negative relationship will exist
between perception
of how well the business is working and
i
36
perceived stress levels for.each generation.
Perception of
how the family business was working was comprised of three
sub-hypotheses.
Sub-hypothesis one. A negative relationship will
exist between perception of how well the business
arrangement is working and perceived stress levels for both
generations.
Significant correlation, coefficients were
obtained for the retiring (r=-.49) and receiving (r=.38)
generations (Table 5).
How well the business arrangement
works was the best predictor of stress for the retiring
Table 5. Correlation Results Between the Family/Business Perspective Variable of How Well the
Business Arrangement Works and Perceived Stress by Generation.
Retiring Generation
(n=43)
I
P
Variables
Business Arrangement
Receiving Generation
(n=43)
r
P
Perceived Stress
-.4901
.003** „
-.3843
.017*
*p<=,05
**p<=,01
generation,
Table 6).
accounting for 24% of the variance (R2 =.24,
37
Table 6. Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress f or the R e t iring Generation.
Variable
R2
Business Arrangement
.24172
P
9.88176
P
.0037
* Statistically Significant at .01
However, it was not significant in predicting stress for
the receiving generation.
Sub-hypothesis two. The less often the retiring and receiving generations are 'concerned about the familybusiness, the lower the stress levels for each generation.
The correlation coefficient of .35 was statistically
significant for the retiring generation.
A significant
correlation was not obtained for the receiving generation
(Table 7).
How often each generation was concerned
about the business was not the best predictor of stress for
either generation.
38
Table 7,
C o r r elation Results Between the Family/Business Perspective Variable of Concerned About the
Business a nd P e rceived Stress b y Generation.
Retiring Generation
(n=43)
. I
P
Variables .
Receiving Generation
(n=43)
r
P
Perceived Stress
Concerned
.3457
.036*
-.0289
.861
*p<=,05
**p<=.01
Sub-hypothesis three. The more the retiring and
receiving generations believe the other generation is
pulling its own
weight in the family business, the lower
the stress levels will be for each generation.
The
correlations between this variable and.perceived stress
were not significant for either generation, as shown in
Table 8.
Perception of how much the other generation is
pulling its own weight was not a significant predictor of
stress for the retiring or receiving generation.
39
Table 8.
C o r r elation Results Between the F a m i l y Business Perspective Variable of Pull i n g Weight and
Per c e i v e d Stress b y Generation.
Retiring Generation
M3)
r
P .
Variables
Pull Weight
Receiving Generation
M3]
I P
Perceived Stress
-.2641
.114
-.2657 .
.102
*p<=.05
**p<=.01
The above analysis tested the hypotheses which assumed
there would be generational differences.
Although the
correlations between the family/business perspectivevariables and stress were statistically significant, for at
least one of the generations, family position (i.e .,
mothers, fathers, sons, daughters-in-Iaw) and gender may be
relevant as the literature review also indicated
differences in stress by family members.
Pearson Product
Moment coefficient correlations and step-wise regression
were used to ascertain correlations between these variables
by family position.
Family Position
' Hypothesis one. There is a negative relationship between cohesion and perceived stress.
Significant ■
40
correlation coefficients were found for both mothers (r=.58) and sons (r=-.53) as shown in Table 9.
Cohesion,
however, was not the best predictor of stress for any •
Table 9. Correlation Results Between the Fainily/Business Perspective Variable of Cohesion and
Perceived Stress by Family Position.
Fathers
Variables
of
Sons
Daughtersin-law
Perceived Stress
Cohesion
-.3022
.062
*p<=.05
**p<=.01
Mothers
-.5752
.000**
-.5335
.000**
-.2619
.107
--
th e
fo u r
fa m iIy
H y p o th e s is
tw o
p o s itio n s .
A n e g a tiv e
r e la tio n s h ip
e x ists
between expressiveness and perceived stress.
Expressiveness was statistically significantly related to
stress for the fathers (r=-.43), mothers (r=-.47), and sons
(r=-.60).
The relationship was not,significant for the
daughters-in-law, as shown in Table 10.
Expressiveness was
a statistically significant predictor of stress for the
fathers (R^=.20) accounting for 20% of the variance, as
shown in Table 11.
4 1
Table
10.
C o r r elation Results Between the Family/Business Perspective Variable of Expressiveness and
Per c e i v e d Stress b y F amily Position.
Fathers
Mothers
Variables
Expressiveness
Sons
Daughtersin-law
Perceived Stress
-.4250
.007**
-.4747
.002**
-.6025
.000**
-.2150
.189
*p<=.05
**p<=.01
Table 11. Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for Fathers.
Variables
R2
Expressiveness
.19670
F.
8.32566
P
.0067*
Z
* Statistically Significant at .01
It was also a statistically significant predictor of stress
for sons (R^=.36) accounting for 36% of the variance, as
shown in Table 13.
42
Table 12.
Step-wise R egression Results Between Family/Business Perspective Variables a nd Perceived
Stress for Sons.
Variable
R2
F
P
Expressiveness
.36098
21.46616
.0000*
* Statistically Significant at .01
Hypothesis three. Perception of how well the family
business is working, consisting of three sub-hypothesis,
will be negatively related to perceived stress.
Sub-hypothesis one. A negative relationship exists
between perception of how well the business arrangement is
working and perceived stress. There was a statistically
significant relationship between how well the business
arrangement works and stress for fathers (r=-.41), mothers
(r=-.54), and sons (r=-.42), as shown in Table 13.
Perception of how well the business arrangement works was
statistically significant for mothers (R2 =.32); accounting
for 32% of the variance (see Table 14).
43
Table 13.
C o r r elation Results Between the F a m i ly/Business Perspective Variable of H o w tie IT the
Business Arrangement tiorks and P erceived Stress by F amily Position.
Fathers
Mothers
Variables
Business Arrangement
Sons
Daughtersin-law ’
Perceived Stress
-.4059
.010**
-.5378
.001**
-.4163
.007*
-.1749
.293
*p<=.05
**p<=.01 "■
Table 14. Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for Mothers.
Variable
R2
F
Business Arrangement
.31883
14.04158
.P
.0008*
* Statistically Significant at .01
Sub-hypothesis two. There is a positive relationship
between how often one is concerned about the family
business and stress.
Concern about the family business was
statistically significantly related to stress (r=-.37) for
mothers, as shown in Table 15.
How often one is concerned
44
Table 15.
C o r relation Results Between the F a m ily/Business Perspective Variable of Concerned About
the Business and Per c e i v e d Stress by F a m i l y Position.
Fathers
Mothers
Variables
Concerned
Sons
Daughtersin-law
Perceived Stress
.1219
.460
.3656
.020*
-.0506
.750
.0307
.875
*p<=.05
about the family business was not a statistically
significant predictor of stress for any of the four family
positions.
Sub-hypothesis three.
A negative relationship exists
between perception of other family members pulling their
own weight in the family business and stress.
Others
pulling their own weight in the family business was
statistically significantly related to stress for the
daughters-in-law (r=-.43), as shown in Table 16. Perception
of other family members pulling their own weight in the
family business was also the best predictor of stress for.
the daughters-in-law accounting for 22% of the variance, as
shown in Table 17.
45
Table 16.
C o r relation Results Between the Family/Business Perspective V a r iable of Pul l i n g Height and
Per c e i v e d Stress by F a m i l y Position.
Fathers
Mothers
Variables
Pull Height
Sons
Daughtersin-law
Perceived Stress
-.2143
.190
-.1558
.337
-.0434
.785
-.4270
.007**
*p<=.05
**p<=.01
Table 17. Step-wise Regression Results Between Family/Business Perspective Variables and Perceived
Stress for Daughters-in-law.
Variable
Pulling Weight
R2
.F
P
.21860
9.79157
.0035*
* Statistically Significant at .01
46
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The overarching hypothesis for this study proposed a
negative relationship between family/business perspectives
and perceived stress levels for both the retiring and
receiving generations. The results of the study generally
supported this hypothesis. These results are discussed
below and are organized around the three family/business
perspective variables.
Cohesion and Expressiveness
Family cohesion was significantly related tb lower
stress levels for both generations (Table 2).
Expressiveness was also statistically significantly related
to stress for both generations, as shown in Table 3.
Based
on the items comprising the expressiveness sub-scale, the
data suggest that feeling free to talk about issues,
express opinions, and discuss problems helps to reduce
stress.
The fact that expressiveness was the best
predictor of stress for the receiving generation (Table 4)
suggests that this is important for them.
One possible
explanation for the generational differences involves
generational stake theory, which posits that both
47
generations are invested, or have stake in, the family
business according to their particular life cycle stage
(Bengston & Kuypers, 1971; Rosenblatt & Anderson, 1981).
Therefore, the receiving generation, which has a stake in
taking over the business as part of the process of starting
a life and building financial security together, is also at
a developmental stage in which differentiation from family
of origin is normative. ■ Having the freedom to express
opinions, feelings, and ideas is an important part of this
process for the receiving generation.
- Perception
The hypothesized relationship between the
family/business perspective variable of how well the
business is working and stress was partially supported.
The first component, "how well, the business arrangement is
working" was supported for both generations (Table 5).
The
second component "often concerned about the family
business" was statistically significant only for the
retiring generation as shown in Table 7.
The final
component, "others pull their own weight", was not
significantly related to stress for either generation
(Table 8).
How well the business arrangement is working was the
best predictor of stress for the retiring generation (Table
6).
Generational stake theory offers an explanation for „
48
this.
The retiring generation has a stake in passing the
business on to their children (Bengston & Kuypers, 1971).
Developmental Iy, this generation is concerned with their
own mortality.
Legacy, a way of preserving immortality,
may become a vital issue for them.
Consequently, it is
important that the business arrangement be working well in
order to facilitate the transfer of the family business and
continuity of the legacy.
In summary, the overarching hypothesis for this study
was, for the most part, supported.
Both the cohesion and
expressiveness variables of the family/business perspective
were related to stress, with expressiveness being a
significant predictor of stress for the receiving
generation.
The hypothesized relationship between
perception of how well the family/business is working, the
third variable of the family business perspective, and
stress was partially supported.
The component "how well
the business arrangement works" was significant for both
generations and was the best predictor of stress for the
retiring generation.
Thus, family/business perspectives appear to affect
stress levels of both the retiring, and receiving
generations in two-generation farm/ranch families.
Family position and gender may provide additional insight
into the relationships between family/business perspectives
and stress.
49
Few generational differences were found between the
retiring and receiving generations.
Overall, family/
business perspectives were negatively related to stress for
both generations.
Examining the hypothesized relationships by family
position offered additional clarity about the relationship
between family business perspectives and stress.
The
family/business perspective variables, in general, were
related to stress for the original nuclear family members
(i.e., fathers, mothers, sons) and only slightly related
for daughters-in-Iaw, the most peripheral member of the
family business system (Marotz-Baden & Mattheis, 1992).
The results are discussed below and organized by family
position.
Mothers
With the exception of others pulling their own weight,
all of the family/business perspective variables are
related to stress for mothers, as shown in Tables 9, 10,
13, and 15.
One possible explanation for these
relationships is that mothers are typically in caretaking/
kinkeeping roles within families in which cohesion and
expressiveness might be perceived as critical aspects of
family functioning.
Mother's concern about the family
business and how well the business arrangement works, the
best predictor of her stress (Table 14), may also be
50
perceived by her as important to family functioning.
Perhaps if the business arrangement is working well there
is less strife in the family.
Consequently, this might
lead to less stress for the mothers who may be depicted as
the.so called "family glue" or "peacekeeper".
Fathers
•
How well the business arrangement works (Table 13) and
expressiveness (Table 10), the best predictor of stress, as
shown in Table 11, are both inversely related to stress for
fathers.
Again, this may be reflective of the importance
the retiring generation, particularly fathers, place on
intergenerational continuity and legacy.
Leaving a legacy
for children, and thus, in a sense, preserving their own
immortality, may explain why it is important to fathers
that the business arrangement be working well.
A good
working business arrangement may facilitate the
intergenerational transfer process and accordingly assure
continuity of the family business and way of life.
A
poorly working arrangement may hinder the transfer process
or completely dissolve family/business relationships.
Thus, the legacy would probably not continue to the next
generation.
51
Sons
The relationship between cohesion and stress was
statistically significant for sons (Table 9).
interpreted in several ways.
This may be
First, if sons are viewing
farming/ranching as a way of life, then it may be important
to them that everybody in the family gets along together.
Davis-Brown and Salamon (1987) posited two distinct types
of farm families with diverse goals and characteristics.
One type of family focused on identity and family concerns,
a primary goal of the business being continuity of a viable
farm.
Intergenerational cooperation was deemed important
by these families.
The other type of family focused on
independence, was very business oriented, and
intergenerationalIy competitive (Davis-Brown & Salamon,
1987).
Another interpretation might be that sons think if
they don't get along then they may not be the ones to get
the farm/ranch.
If farming and family continuity are
important to the sons, according to generational stake
theory, they would not want to jeopardize relationships
with their parents (Marotz-Baden, Keating, & Munro, 1993).
How well the arrangement works, also statistically
significant for sons, perhaps was viewed by them as being a
key component in facilitating a smooth transfer of the
family business, and consequently important to their future
security.
Expressiveness,. the best predictor of stress for
sons (see Table 13), may be interpreted as tapping into the
52
son’s individuation process, which is probably more
difficult because these sons worked with their parents and
often resided in relatively close proximity.
Daughters-in-1aw
The relationship between others pulling their own
weight, an issue of equality, and stress was the best and
only predictor of stress for daughters-in-law
16 & 17).
(Tables
Perhaps the original nuclear family members are
less concerned about the issue of equality because they
view their situations as family business.
Daughters-in-
law, being in peripheral positions, may view farming
strictly as business and, therefore, may be more concerned
about equality.
The original nuclear family members may
view farming/ranching as a way of life, whereas the
daughters-in-law may view farming as a way to make a
living.
In addition, or perhaps alternatively, this
relationship between stress and equality may reflect her
position in the family.
Marotz-Baden and Mattheis (1992)
found that daughters-in-law view themselves as being
peripheral to, and lacking equal status in, the extended
farm family system.
Additionally, the daughters-in-law
were peripheral to the family business system and had
little responsibility for business-related decision making.
Lack of equality may be related to the daughters-in-law
consistently higher stress scores in farm family research.
>
53
Gendei"
Expressiveness was the best predictor of stress for
both fathers and sons (Table 11) suggesting a possible
gender effect.
One interpretation of this may be that men
are more problem solving and independent oriented.
Women
are oriented more towards connectedness (Tannen, "1990).
According to this perspective, men would be more apt to
view expressiveness as a'way to assert independence and
solve problems.
Overall, this study indicates that family business
perspectives, whether viewed generational Iy or by family
position, affect stress within two-generation farm and
ranch families.
The stress may influence the congruence
between family business perspectives and commitment to the
goals of the business, although that relationship was not
tested in this study.
Transferring the farm/ranch business
from the retiring to the receiving generation is a major
goal of many farmers and ranchers which could ultimately be
affected by family/business perspectives.
Congruence
between such perspectives and commitment to goals of the
business may help facilitate a successful transfer process,
incongruence may lead to eventual failure of the process.
Implications
The results of this study have implications for rural
health care professionals, counselors/therapists, extension
54
agents, and researchers. Overall, family business
perspectives are related to stress in two-generation farm
families.
Knowing this information would be an asset to
rural health care professionals in the diagnosis,
treatment, and referral of farm or ranch individuals
manifesting physical symptoms associated with high stress.
The results of this study may also be beneficial
information for counselors or therapists as they may want
to focus on how family/business perspectives affect stress
as part of treatment plans for two-generation farm or ranch
families.
Knowing that individuals perceive their
family/business situations differently may be helpful.
For
example, knowing that "expressiveness" is the best
predictor of stress for fathers and "how well the business
arrangement works" is the best predictor of stress for
mothers provides insight into some issues which may be
influencing family functioning.
Extension agents may also
find the information from this study useful in planning and
implementing programs for rural adult education.
The information on family/business perspectives and
stress in two-generation farm and ranch families would also
be helpful in facilitating future research.
Future
research could address the following questions:
I. What other components of family/business perspectives
are related to stress?
55
2. What other aspects of family functioning do family/
business perspectives affect?
3. Do family business perspectives actually affect
commitment to the intergenerational transfer process?
4. How does the developmental need for the receiving
generation to individuate affect their success within
the transfer process?
Limitations
Only the complete two-generation farm families were
utilized in this study.
Thus, the sample size was small
(n=43) limiting the data analysis techniques utilized.
In
addition, non-random sampling methods were used in
obtaining the sample.
Consequently, the. results of this
study cannot be generalized beyond the sampled population.
Another limitation of this study was that only one
component (i.e., family/business perspectives) of the
Interaction-Based Model of Social Exchange was tested.
Also, in order to thoroughly test the family/business
perspective it is important to include more variables in
the study than could be obtained from this particular data
set.
REFERENCES CITED
57
Anderson, S . (1986). Cohesion, adaptability and
communication: A test of an Olson circumplex
model hypothesis. Family Relations. 35, 289-293.
Anderson, R., & Rosenblatt, P.(1985). Intergenerational
transfer of farm land. Journal of Rural Community
Psychology, 6(1), 19-25.
BalIard-Reisch, D., & Weigel, D . (1991). An interactionbased model of social exchange in the two-generation
farm family. Family Relations, 40, 225-231.
Beckhard, R., & Dyer, W. G. (1983). Managing continuity in
the family owned business. Organization Dynamics,
11(4), 5-12.
Bengston, V., & Kuypers, J . (1971). Generational
differences and the developmental stake.
Aging and Human Development, 2, 249-260.
Bloom, B. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report
measures of family functioning. Family Process,
24(2), 225-239.
Boehlje, M. (1973, July). The entry-growth-exit-processes
in agriculture. Southern Journal of Agriculture
Economics, pp. 23-32.
Boss, P . (1988). FamiIy stress management. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications,, Inc. .
Bratton, A. & Berkowitz, A., (1976). Intergenerational
transfer of the farm business. New York Food and Life
Sciences Quarterly. 9(2), 7-9.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global
measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Coughenour, C., & Kowalski, G . (1977). Status and role of
fathers and sons on partnership farms. Rural
Sociology, 42(2), 180-205.
Davis-Brown K., & Salamon, S . (1987). Farm families in
crisis: an application of stress theory to farm family
research. Family Relations, 36, 368-373.
Dillman, D . (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: the total
method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
58
Fetsch, R., & Brooke-Jacobsen, R. (1992). A study of
perception as an intervening variable in farm/ranch
family stress. Unpublished manuscript.
Gay, L. (1987). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and application. Columbus: Merrill Publishing
Company.
Hedlund, D., & Berkowitz, A. (1979). The incidence of
social-psychological stress in farm families.
International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 9,
233-243.
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress, adjustment to the
crisis of war, separation, and reunion. New York:
Harper.
Holmes, T., & Rahe, R. (1967). The social readjustment
rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 2,
213-218.
Jonovic, D., & Messick, W. (1986). Passing down the farm:
The other farm crisis. Cleveland: Jamison Press.
Keating, N. (1987). Reducing stress of farm men and farm
women. Family Relations, 36, 358-363.
Keating, M., & Munro, B . (1989). Transferring the family
farm: Process and implications. Family Relations, 38,
215-218.
Keating, N., & Little, H. (1991). Generations in farm
,
families: Transfer of the family farm in New Zealand.
Unpublished manuscript.
Kendall, D . (1988, September). Graying of american farmers
could result in fewer U.S. farms, the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle. p. 35.
La Coste, L., Ginter, E., & Whipple, G . (1987). Intrafamily
communication and familial environment. Psychological
Reports, 61, 115-118.
Magnuson-Martinson, S., & Bauer> J . (1986). Family farm and
estate planning: Some important considerations.
The
Rural Sociologist, 3, 151-159.
59
MaIia , J ., Norem, R.,.& Garrison, M. (1991, November).
Discrepancies in perception of real and ideal family
functioning, life events, and family health. Paper
presented, at the 53rd Annual Conference of the
National Council on Family Relations, Denver,
Colorado.
Marotz-Baden, R . (1988). Income, economic satisfaction, and
stress in two-generational farm families. Farm and
Economic Issues. 9.(4), 331-355.
Marotz-Baden, R. (1989). W—167 Western Regional Agriculture
Experiment Station. Progress REport for Montana,
1990-1991. Grant No. M0NB00266.
Marotz-Baden, R., & Colvin, P. (1986). Coping strategies: A
rural urban comparison. Family Relations, 35, 281-288.
Marotz-Baden, R. & Cowan, D. (1987). Mothers-in-Iaw and
daughters-in-law: The effects of proximity on conflict
and stress. Family Relations, 36.(4), 385-390.
Marotz-Baden, R., Keating, N., & Munro, B. (1993). The
meaning of retirement in the culture of farming: A
cross-national comparison. Unpublished manuscript.
Marotz-Baden, R., & Mattheis, C. (1992, November).
Daughters-in-law and stress in two-generation farm
families. Paper presented at the National Conference
on Family Relations, Orlando, Florida.
McCubbin, H., & Patterson, J . (1981). Systematic assessment
of family stress, resources, and coping. St. Paul, MN:
University of Minnesota.
Montana Department of Agriculture (1991). Montana
Agriculture Statistics. Volume XXVIII. Helena: U.S.
Courthouse.
Olson, D., & McCubbin, H. (1983). Families: What makes them
work. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Olson, D., Russell, C., & Sprenkle D . (1983). Circumplex
model of marital and family systems: VI. Theoretical
update. Family Process, 22, 69-83.
Rosenblatt, P . (1985, July). Family Inc. Psychology Today,
19(7), pp. 55-59.
60
Rosenblatt, P ., & Anderson, R . (1981). Interaction in farm
families: Tension and stress. In R. Coward & W. Smith,
Jr. (Eds.), The Family in Rural Society, (pp. 147166). Boulder: Westview Press.
Rosenblatt, P., & Albert, S . (1990). Management and
succession: Intergenerational relationships in fact
and metaphor. Corporations. Businesses, and Fami Iigg161-171.
Rosenblatt, P., Neveldine, A., & Titus, S . (1978). Farm
families: Relation of significant aspects of farming
to family interaction. International Journal of
Sociology of the Family. 8, 89-99.
Russell, C., Flinchbaugh, C., Griffin, C., & Martin, M.
(1983). Intergenerational farm transfer: Predicting
ease. Unpublished Manuscript.
Russell, C., Griffin, C., Flinchbaugh, C., Martin, M., &
Atilano, R. (1985). Coping strategies associated with
intergenerational transfer of the family farm. Rural
Sociology, 50, 361-376.
Salamon, S., & Markan, K. (1984). Incorporation and the
farm family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46,
167-178.
Swogger, G., Jr. (1991, Winter). Assessing the successor
generation in family business. Family Business Review,
4(4), 397-422.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men
in conversation. New York: William Morrow & Co..
Urey, J., & Henggeler, S . (1983). Interaction in rural
families. In A. W. Childs & G.B. Melton (Eds.),
Rural psychology (pp. 33-44). New York: Plenum Press.
Ward, J . (1987). Keeping the family business healthy: How
to plan for continuing growth, profitability, and ■
family leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weigel, D., & Ballard-Reisch, D. (1991, November).
Understanding the intergenerational family business:
An interaction-based model of social exchange. Paper
presented at Annual Conference of the National Council
on Family Relations, Denver, Colorado.
Weigel, R., & Weigel, D. (1987). Identifying stressors and
coping strategies in two-generation farm families.
Family Relations, 36, 379-384.
61
Weigel, R., Weigel, D., & Blundal I, J . (1987). Stress,
coping, and satisfaction: Generational differences in
farm families. Family Relations, 36, 45-48.
Williams, F. (1986). Reasoning with statistics: How to read
quantitative Research. New York: CBS College
Publishing.
Wilson, S., Marotz-Baden, R., & Holloway, D. (1991). Stress
in two-generation farm and ranch families. Lifestyles:
Family and Economic Issues, 12(3).
62
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
63
The purpose of this questionnaire is to learn how farmers and
ranchers plan for retirement and transfer or sale of their farms or
ranches and how they feel about farming/ranching with their adult
children. Be as careful and honest as you can, and be sure to answer
all of the questions. All information you disclose will be kept
completely confidential.
SECTION A The following questions are about retirement and
transfer or sale of your farming/ranching business.____________
1. What does retirement from farming/ranching mean to you? (Circle all that
apply)
1 HAVING LITTLE OR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
FARM/RANCH
2 DOING LITTLE OR NO PHYSICAL W O R K ON THE
FARM/RANCH
3 SELLING OR TRANSFERRING THE OPERATION
2. Are you planning to retire from farming/ranching?
1 NO
2 NOT SURE
3 YES
Ifyes, at what age do you plan to retire?
___ YEARS OF AGE
<
4 IRETIRED AT THE AGE O F ___
3. The following are reasons why you might retire (or retired) from
farming/ranching. How important is each reason to you? Please
circle your answer for each question.
U
NVI
SI
VI
EI
means
means
means
means
means
Unimportant
Not Very Important
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Extremely important
1 To lighten my physical work
load...............
2 To establish my children in
farming/ranching........ U
3 To pursue other activities... U
4 To reduce my responsibilities... U
5 To provide income for my
retirement...........
U
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
NVI
NVI
SI
SI
SI
VI
VI
VI
EI
EI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
EI
64
4. Do you expect your farm/ranch to remain in your family after your
retirement or death?
I NO
Ifno, what do you think willhappen to it?
2 YES
-If yes, who do you think will own it?
5. The following are reasons people transfer ownership of their
farm/ranch upon retirement or death. How important is each
reason to you? Please circle your answers.
U
NVI
SI
VI
EI
means
means
means
means
means
Unimportant
Not Very Important
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Extremely Important
I To treat all our children fairly.. U
2 To get one or more of our children
started in farming/ranching... U
3 To provide financial security for
ourselves or our survivors.... U
4 To keep the farm/ranch in the
family...... ........... U
5 To keep the farm/ranch intact even
ifitmeans selling to an outsider.... U
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
EI
65
6. The following are reasons why people delay transferring
ownership of their farm/ranch. How important is each
reason to you? Please circle your answers.
U
NVI
SI
VI
EI
means
means
means.
means
means
Unimportant
Not Very Important
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Extremely Important
I We are stillactively engaged in
farming/ranching........... U
Our children or heirs are not
interested in farming/ranching... U
We can'tthink ofanything else we
would rather do..........
U
We can't afford to sell the farm/ranch
at today's prices........... U
We don't have sufficient information
about how to transfer the
farm/ranch............... U
Our children can't afford to take
over the farm/ranch........
U
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
ET
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
EI
NVI
SI
VI
EI
7. Which of the following activities have you done in developing an
estate plan? Please circle your answers.
1 Talked to my spouse about my goals forthe futureof
the business........................... Yes
2 Talked to my children about my goals forthe future of
the business......................
Yes
3 Developed a net worthstatement.............. Yes
4 Estimated myretirement expenses............. Yes
5 Updated my will in the last 5 years..........;.. Yes
6 Used the Montana State Extension home study:
Estate Planning for Every Montanan....... Yes
7 Attended an estate planning or retirement workshop.. Yes
8 Met with the following professionals to discuss estate
planning:
lawyer................ Yes
accountant............. Yes
financial planner......... Yes
Montana State Extension staff..Yes
insurance agent... ....... Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
\
66
SECTION B The following are questions about the work and
management history of your farm/ranch._______________
In this study farm/ranch work is divided into four components: the
actual labor, production management, marketing management, and
financial management. The following questions are about who has
done, does, and will do each of the four important components of
farm/ranch work.
I. In order to understand the retirement process of farmers and ranchers, itis
important toknow about theirfarm/ranch work and management. The
following are questions about your past,present, and anticipated labor history.
Farm/ranch labor includes field and livestock work, building and
property maintenance, equipment maintenance, chores, errands,
record or bookkeeping, and secretarial work.
First, circle your present age category below. Then write in the approximate
percentage (from 0 to 100%) of the total farm/ranch labor you, your,
wife, children, hired help, or others each did in each of the age categories up
until,and including, your present age.
I
Your age Others
Percentage of farm/ranch labor
each nerson did/will do
40-50
___
___
___
___
___
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
Self
Wife •
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
67
Your age Others
'i
Percentage of farm/ranch labor
each person did/will do
61-65
Self
Wife
Child(ren).
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
66-70
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
71-75
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
Now please go back and write in the percentage of the farm/ranch labor
you and the others expect tobe doing during each ten and five year period
until you reach the age of75.
At what age do you think you will no longer be doing any farm/ranch
labor?
1 IHAVE NEVER DONE FARM/RANCH LABOR
2 ISTOPPED DOING FARM/RANCH LABOR AT A G E ___
3 ITHINK IWILL NO LONGER BE DOING ANY
FARM/RANCH LABOR AT THE AGE OF___
4 IPLAN TO WORK AS LONG AS IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE
5 WHEN IDIE
68
2. Management isanother important part of the farm/ranch business. The
following are questions about your past,present, and anticipated management
history. Management includes making decisions about planting,
harvesting, supervising hired help, buying and selling farm/ranch
produce and livestock, capital, purchases, and loans.
First, circle your present age category below. Then write in the approximate
percentage (from 0 to 100%) of the farm/ranch management you, your wife,
children, hired help, or others each did in each of the age categories up until,
and including, your present age.
Your age Others
Percentage of the farm/ranch
management each person did/will do
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
51-60
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
61-65
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
40-50
t
!i
69
Your age Others
Percentage of the farm/ranch
management each person did/will do
66-70
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
71-75
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Hired help
Other
%
%
%
%
%
Now go back and write in the percentage of the total farm/ranch
management you, your wife, children, hired help and others expect to be
doing during each ten or five year period untilyou reach the age of 75.
At what age do you think you will no longer be dong any farm/ranch
management?
1 IHAVE NEVER DONE MANAGEMENT
2 ISTOPPED DOING MANAGEMENT AT THE
AGE O F ___
3 ITHINK IWILL NO LONGER BE DOING ANY
MANAGEMENT AT THE AGE OF ___ .
4 IPLAN TO BE INVOLVED IN MANAGEMENT AS LONG
AS POSSIBLE
5 WHEN IDIE
70
SECTION C The following questions are about the legal ownership of
_______ .
______
the farm or ranch.
I. a) What type of business arrangement best describes your farm/ranch?
1 SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP
2 CORPORATION
Who are the shareholders?______________________
3 PARTNERSHIP
Who are the partners?.
4 OTHER (Please explain)
Is the arrangement:
1 WRITTEN ■
2 UNWRITTEN
b) How well does the arrangement work?
I VERY WELL
’
2 ALL RIGHT MOST OF THE TIME
3 NOT VERY WELL
4 IT'S A DISASTER
COMMENTS______________
c) Please circle the number of the current land ownership arrangement of
your farm/ranch?
1 SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP
2 TENANCY-IN-COMMON
Between whom? ____________________________
3 JOINT TENANCY
Between whom? ___________________________
4 LIFE ESTATE
5 CORPORATION
71
2. a) What percentage of the land you farm/ranch is legally owned by the
following:
%
SELF
%
WIFE
%
FATHER
%
MOTHER
%
WIFE'S FATHER
%
WIFE'S MOTHER
%
SON(S)
%
DAUOHTER(S)
%
PARTNER
%
CORPORATION
%
OTHER
The total should add up to 100%.
b) What percentage of the farm/ranch machinery you use is legally owned by
the following:
%
SELF
%
WIFE
%
FATHER
%
MOTHER
%
WIFE'S FATHER
%
WIFE'S MOTHER
%
SON(S)
%
DAUGHTER(S)
%
PARTNER
%
CORPORATION
■%
OTHER
The total should add up to 100%.
c) Ifyou have livestock, what percentage of the livestock is legally owned
by the following:
%
SELF
%
WIFE
%
FATHER
%
MOTHER
%
WIFE'S FATHER
%
WIFE'S MOTHER
%
SON(S)
%
DAUGHTER(S)
%
PARTNER
r%
CORPORATION
%
OTHER
The total should add up to 100%.
72
3. a) Are you currently expanding the size of your business operation?
1 NO
(Ifyou answered no, please skip to 3b.)
2 YES
IfYES are you:
- Buying additional land
1 NO
2 YES
Leasing additional land
1 NO
2 YES
Buying livestock
1 NO
2 YES
b) Are you currently reducing the size of your operation?
1 NO
(Ifyou answered no, please skip to 3c.)
2 YES
IfYES are you:
Selling land
1 NO
2 YES
Leasing land tosomeone
1 NO
2 YES
Selling livestock
1 NO
2 YES
3 DON'T O W N ANY LIVESTOCK
c) Are you currently maintaining the size of your operation?
1 NO
2 YES
73
4. Please circle your age in categories listed below. Then indicate
approximately how much of the land you, your wife, children, partner, the
corporation, and others legally owned that you farmed or ranched during
each of the age categories up until,and including, your present age.
Percentage '
each owned
Your Age
Others
40-50
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Partner
Corporation
Other
%
%
%
%
%
%
51-60
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Partner
Corporation
Other
%
%
%
%
%
%
61-65
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Partner
Corporation
Other
%
%
%
%
%
%
66-70
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Partner
Corporation
Other
%
%
%
%
%
%
71-75
Self
Wife
Child(ren)
Partner
Corporation
Other
%
%
%
%
%
%
74
Now go back and write in the percentage of the land you, your wife, children
partner, the corporation, or others expect to legally own during each ten or
five year period until you reach the age of75.
At what age do you think you will no longer own any farm/ranch land?
1 IHAVE NEVER OWNED ANY
2 IHAVE NOT OWNED ANY LAND SINCE IW A S ___
YEARS OLD
3 !.THINK IWILL NO LONGER O W N ANY LAND WHEN I
A M ___ YEARS OLD.
4 WHEN IDIE
SECTION D The following questions concern your thoughts about
working with other family members, and about farming/ranching as
an occupation._______________
I. Thinking about the children you farm/ranch with and
farming/ranching as an occupation, please circle the answer that
best fits how you feel.
'
SA
A
N
D
SD
means
means
means
means
means
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1 My children are extremely important to me..
2 I usually make decisions aftertalking to my
children........................
3 I make a point of talking to my children every
day...........................
4 Ifmy children were not around Idon't know
what I would do..................
5 I think my children respect me.........
6 This farm/ranch is important to me......
7 This farm/ranch isthe only farm/ranch Iwould
want to live on...................
8 Iam often concerned about the farm/ranch
business...................... .
9 Iwork hard in order to make the farm/ranch
successful.......................
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
SA
SA
A
A
A
N
N
N
D
D
D
SD
SD
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
75
10 Itis important to me to pass the farm/ranch to
my children..............
SA A N D
11 Iwould rather not sell the farm/ranch to
someone who was not part of the family.... SA A N D
12 Iencourage my children to stay in
farming/ranching so thatsome day they can
take over my farm/ranch.............. SA A N D
13 Iwould like"my children to remain in
farming/ranching................... SA A N D
14 The way my children farm/ranch is similar
to the way I farm/ranch............... SA A N
D
15 Igive my children the freedom to make their
own decisions about running the farm/ranch.. SA A N
D
16 Iwould like my children to remain in
farming/ranching in order to carry on my name..
SA A N
D
17 Iwant my children to farm/ranch the way
they'd like to farm/ranch.............. SA A N
D
18 Iwould like to do something other than
farming/ranching................... SA A N D
19 11wouId rather my children farmed/ranched on
their own farm/ranch rather than ours..... SA A N
D
20 Farming/ranching isthe only occupation I
really enjoy....................... SA A N D
21 Farming/ranching isextremely important to me.... SA A N
D
22 Idon’tknow what Iwould do ifIwas
not farming/ranching................ SA A N
D
23 Being able to make farm/ranch decisions is
important to me.................... SA A N D
24 Iplan to remain in farming/ranching indefinitely. SA A N D
25 Iam usually happy with the things my
children do....................... SA A .N D
26 Itend to be more responsible than my
children for the farming/ranching operation... SA A N D
27 My children and Iusually agree on
important issues................ .... SA A N D
28 My children often make decisions I
disagree with...................... SA A N D
29 My children's future dreams for the
farm/ranch are different than mine.......
SA A N D
30 Ibelieve my children pull their
own weight on the farm/ranch.......
SA A N D
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
76
2. For the following questions, please circle the answer that you
think is most true for your family right now. You may feel that
some statements are very true for some family members and less
true or untrue for others. Judge each statement in terms of n m t
family members. Think of your family as your wife, your most
involved child and his/her spouse.
VU
FU
FT
VT
means
means
means
means
Very Untrue for my family
Fairly Untrue for my family
Fairly True for my family
Very True formy family
1 Family members really help and support one
another....... .................
2 There isa feeling of togetherness in our
family........................
3 Our-family doesn't do things together....
4 We really get along well with each other..
5 Family members seem to avoid contact with
,each .other when at home....... ....
6 Family members feel free to say what ison
their minds............... .....
7 Our family does not discuss itsproblems..
8 Family members discuss problems and
usually feel good about the solutions......
9 In.our family itis important for everyone to
express their opinion..............
10 We don't telleach other about our personal
problems......................
VU
FU
FT
VT
VU
VU
VU
FU
FU
FU
FT
FT
FT
VT
VT
VT
VU
FU
FT
VT
VU
VU
FU
FU
FT
FT
VT
VT
VU
FU
FT
VT
VU
FU
FT
VT
VU
FU
FT
VT
77
SECTION E The following questions are about your experiences and
thoughts DURING THE LAST MONTH.
I. In each question indicate how often you felt or thought a certain
way. Although some of the questions are similar, there are
differences between them, treat each one as a separate question.
N
AN
S
FO
VO
means
means
means
means
means
Never
Almost Never
Sometimes
Fairly Often
Very Often
How Often in the Last Month Have You:
(circle your answer)
I Been upsetbecause of something that
happened unexpectedly?........ . N
2 Felt thatyou were unable to control the
important things in your life?....... N
3 .Felt nervous and "stressed"?........ N
4 Dealt successfully with irritating life
, hassles?..................... N
5 Felt you were effectively coping with
important changes that were occurring in
your life?................... N
6 Felt confident about your ability tohandle
your personal problems?.......... N
7 Felt that things were going your way?.. N
8 Found that you could not cope with allthe
things that you had to do?......... N
9 Been able to control irritation in your
life?....................... N
10 Felt that you were on top of things?... N
11 Been angered because ofthings that
happened that were outside of your
control?..................... N
12 Found yourselfthinking about things that
you have accomplished?.......... N
13 Been able to control the way you spend your
time?....................... N
14 Feltdifficultieswere piling up so high that
you could not overcome them?...... N
AN
S
PO VO
AN
AN
S
S
FO VO
FO VO
AN
S
FO VO
AN
S
FO VO
AN
AN
S
S
FO VO
FO VO
AN
S
FO VO
AN
AN
S
S
FO VO
FO VO
AN
S
FO VO
AN
S
FO VO
AN
S
FO VO
AN
S
FO VO
78
SECTION F The following questions about you and your family are
for statistical purposes. Remember all information is strictly
confidential and your anonymity is assured.__________________
1. Please circle the number of the answer which best describes your current
marital status.
1 MARRIED
2 SINGLE
3 DIVORCED
4 WIDOWED
5 SEPARATED
IF MARRIED, how long have you been married to your present spouse?
___ YEARS
2. In what year were your bom?.19;___
3. In what year was .your wife bom?.19____
4. How many years of schooling have you completed? (Includes total of grade school,
high school, vocational, technical and university)
___ YEARS
Please circle the number that represents thehighest level ofeducation you completed.
1 NO FORMAL EDUCATION
2 SOME GRADE SCHOOL
3 COMPLETED GRADE SCHOOL
4 SOME HIGH SCHOOL
5 COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL
6 SOME TRADE OR TECHNICAL SCHOOL
7 COMPLETED TRADE OR TECHNICAL SCHOOL
8 SOME COLLEGE
9 TWO-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE
10 FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE (B.A., B.S) COMPLETED
11 SOME GRADUATE SCHOOL OR PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL
12 POST-GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COMPLETED
5. What isyour farm/ranch work status? (Circle all appropriate categories)
1 FULL-TIME FARMER/RANCHER (35 hours or more per week)
2 PART-TIME FARMER/RANCHER (less than 35 hours per
week)
3 HOMEMAKER (35 hours or more per week)
4 RETIRED
5 OTHER_________________
6. On average for a year, how many hours per week do you do some type of
farm/ranch work? ___ HOURS PER WEEK
I
79
7. What is your current off-farm/ranch employment status?
1 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE (35 hours or more per week)
2 PART-TIME EMPLOYEE (less than 35 hours per week)
3 NOT EMPLOYED OFF FARM/RANCH
4 RETIRED FROM OFF FARM/RANCH EMPLOYMENT
8. For what reason of reasons do you have an off-farm/ranch job? (Circle all
that apply)
1 TO HELP WITH THE FINANCIAL DEMANDS OF THE
FARM/RANCH BUSINESS
2 TO BE ABLE TO BUY MORE THINGS FOR THE HOUSE AND
FAMILY
3 TO BE ABLE TO BUY SOME THINGS FOR MYSELF
4 IFIND OFF-FARM/RANCH EMPLOYMENT VERY
ENJOYABLE
5 ILIKE TO GET OFF THE FARM/RANCH
6 ILIKE TO BE WITH THE PEOPLE AT WORK
7 IHAVE SKILLS THAT CAN ONLY BE USED IN
OFF-FARM/RANCH
8 M Y W O R K IDENTITY IS IN M Y OFF-FARM/RANCH JOB
9 OTHER (please explain)_________________________
9. In triepast year, what was your gross income from off-farm/ranch employment?
$________
10. Please write first names, sex, ages and marital status of each of
your children in the space below.
Marital Status: M
W
N
S
D
First Name
Sex
means Married
means Widowed
means Never married
means Separated
means Divorced
Marital
Status
Spouses
Name
Age
Farm/ranch
With you?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
80
11. For each of your children over 18 who are farming/ranching with you,
please write the reason they are farming/ranching with you.
Name: ____________________
Reason they are farming/ranching with me:_________________
How faraway from you does he/she live? (Ifless than 1/2mile write 0)
MILES
Name: ____________________
Reason they are farming/ranching with me:
How faraway from you does he/she live? (Ifless than 1/2mile write 0)
MILES
Name: ____________________
Reason they are farming/ranching with me:
How faraway from you does he/she live? (Iflessthan 1/2mile write 0)
____MILES
12. Which of these children ismost involved in the farm/ranch operation?
Name: _____________________
13. For each of your children over age 18 who are not farming/ranching with
you, please indicate what they are doing and the reason they are not
farming/ranching with you. (For example, Lucy ismarried,and
farming/ranching with her husband in Idaho.)
_
Name:__________ ________ :
Occupation: _________________
Reason they are not farming/ranching with you:________________
81
Name: ____________________
Occupation: _________________
Reason they are not famiing/ranching with you:
Name:
-_______________ ■
Occupation: __________________
Reason they are not farming/ranching with you:
14. Which of these children isleast involved in the operation?
Name: ______________________
In our research we would like to talk with some adult children who are not
involved on the farm/ranch as well as some who are. We may want to contact
the adult child who isleast involved in your farm. Would you please give
me his or her address.
I
15. Which one of the following provides your major source of farm/ranch
income in an average year?
1 GRAINS OR SEED
2 LIVESTOCK
3 DAIRY
4 MIXED (Describe)
.
_____________
5 OTHER TYPE OF FARM OPERATION(Describe)
16. What is the population of the closest town to where you live, or of the town
inwhich you live?
1 TOWN WITH LESS THAN 2,500 PEOPLE
2 T O W N WITH BETWEEN 2,500 AND 10,000 PEOPLE
3 T O W N WITH BETWEEN 10,000 AND 50,000 PEOPLE
4 CITY WITH OVER 50,000 PEOPLE
17. Ifyou live out of town, how far away is this town from your
farm/ranch?.. .... MILES
18. Ifyou live in town, how far away isyour farm/ranch?
MILES
82
19. How long have you lived in this community?
___^MONTHS, IF LESS THAN A YEAR
___ YEARS
20. Including you, how many generations has the farm/ranch been in your (your
wife's) family?
___ GENERATION(S)
21. Are you the principle operator of this farm/ranch?
1 NO
2 YES
Ifyes, how long have you been the principle operator?
___ YEARS
Ifno, who isthe principle operator?______________
22. Under current economic conditions, is the size of your farm/ranch operation
large enough to support you, your wife, your child(ren) who are working
with you ,and theirfamilies?.
’
1
2
3
4
YES, QUITE ADEQUATELY
YES, BUT BARELY
NO, W E NEED SLIGHTLY MORE LAND, LIVESTOCK, ETC.
NO, W E NEED CONSIDERABLY MORE LAND,
LIVESTOCK, ETC.
5 OTHER (Please explain)__________________
23. Circle the following category that comes closest to your annual family
income, before taxes, in 1990. Please include income from all sources.
1 LESS THAN $10,000
2 $10,000 TO $14,999
3 $15,000 TO $19,999
4 $20,000 TO $27,999
5 $28,000 TO $35,999
6 $36,000 TO $49,999
7 $50,000 TO $64,999
8 $65,000 TO $79,999
9 $80,000 OR MORE
24. Think of all the financial assets and real estateproperty you and your wife
own. Include thatpart of the farm or ranch which isyours as well as the
present value of your home, buildings, and otherproperty. This includes
machinery, livestock, checking and savings accounts, certificates ofdeposit,
stocks, bonds, and real estate property. What do you estimate as the value
of ALL your and your wife's assets? Please estimate to the nearest ten
thousand. $__________ ___•
83
25. Now think of allthe debts you and your wife owe. Include outstanding loan
balances forsuch things as machinery, vehicles, and household appliances,
and loans from banks, finance companies, friends, or relatives. Include
mortgages on home, land, and other property, charge accounts, and any
other unpaid bills. What do you estimate as the value of alldebts you and
your wife owe? Please estimate to the nearest ten thousand.
$ ■;_______________ .
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! ALL OF THE INFORMATION
THAT YOU PROVIDED WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY
CONFIDENTIAL. W E BELIEVE THAT THE ANSWERS TO
THESE QUESTIONS WILL BE OF GREAT HELP TO OTHER
FARMERS AND RANCHERS W H O ARE FACING
RETIREMENT. THEY M A Y ALSO BE OF ASSISTANCE TO
POLICY MAKERS AS THEY CONSIDER WAYS TO PRESERVE
FAMILY FARMS.
Please return the survey to:
i Dr. Ramona Marotz-Baden
Department ofHealth and Human Development
Herrick Hall
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
I
84
Please use this space forany additional comments you would like to make about
farming/ranching with your child(ren).
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION. I
greatly appreciate your efforts in filling out this questionnaire. Ifyou would like
a summary of the results of the study, please write your name and address on the
back of the return envelope (not on thisquestionnaire). Iwill see that you get
one.